Fluid mount scanning

[soupdragon]

Having run a roll of Velvia through my latest camera I decided to have a go at using the epson fluid mount on my V850.
It's surprisingly easy to do and I like the fact you can include the film edges.
Sadly I could see little (if any) improvement over dry scanning using the standard holders.

Anyone here using a fluid mount and seeing huge benefits?

 

[Harlequin565]

Not tried fluid mounting mainly because I watched Nick Carver's videos on scanning comparisons.

He does a drum vs fluid vs DSLR video as well as "5 ways to scan" video which compares dry to wet.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9d8BukUgzI

and

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfGKd_AEZtY

 

[soupdragon]

Thanks.
I watched these and other videos on wet/dry scanning.
They all say wet is better but I'm blowed if I can see it.
If I can figure out what the maximum file sizes are allowed for posting I'll put up a couple of comparisons.

 

[StephenM]

This is not first hand experience. I understand that the specific points to look for are the effect on visible grain (I assume black and white only, since colour film doesn't have grain akin to black and white) and resolution/sharpness. I'm assuming that you're scanning 35mm or roll film, whereas I am scanning black and white 100 ISO film (or thereabouts) in 5x4 upwards. With my negatives, I don't actually need to check or worry about grain or sharpness, as the degree of enlargement is comparatively small.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Fluid scanning should eliminate the possibility of newtons rings and hold the negatives flatter.
However I am not sure many people would ever see the difference. I do not understand why it might have an effect on grain but some people say that it does.

 

[StephenM]

It may depend on the scanner used. Some years ago, there was an article in Professional Imagemaker comparing the results from scanning 5x4 black and white negatives on the then top end Epson flatbed (750 from memory) and an Imacon drum scanner. The results were that the photographer (Paul Gallagher) preferred the Epson scans - softer, but correctable in PP, and didn't highlight the grain in the skies. So it might be that a drum scanner would show greater difference.

I haven't really thought about the effect with grain, and whether it's reasonable for the effect to exist. Although I'll try not to fall into the trap of "if you can't suggest a mechanism, the effect is down to experimental error".

 

[robhooley167]

I've drum scanned both wet and dry, couldn't tell you which was better, but I could tell you dry was a lot quicker, a lot easier, and a lot less messy!